Mehalko v. Doe
2018 IL App (2d) 170788 (2018)
Rule of Law:
A trial court retains jurisdiction, both under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) and its inherent authority, to enforce its prejudgment discovery orders through indirect civil contempt proceedings even after a final judgment has been entered, provided the contempt order includes a clear purge provision.
Facts:
- Kathy Mehalko, an animal rights activist, filed a complaint against various 'Jane and John Does' alleging defamation and other claims based on content posted on Facebook pages 'Opposing Voices of Kathy Mehalko Puppymill Agenda' and 'Pet Owners Beware.'
- In a related action, Mehalko obtained an order requiring Facebook to disclose the identity of the individual(s) behind 'Opposing Voices,' leading to Jane Doe being identified.
- On November 8, 2016, the trial court granted Mehalko leave to conduct a limited deposition of Doe, ordering Mehalko not to disclose Doe's identity to anyone and warning of contempt if she did.
- Mehalko attended Doe's deposition on November 15, 2016, and learned Doe's identity.
- On April 24, 2017, Mehalko alluded to Doe's identity on her own Facebook page by describing the person behind 'Opposing Voices' as a female resident of Belvidere who bred a certain type of dog.
- Within hours of that post, Mehalko used the alias 'Justin Guy' to post comments on her Facebook page revealing Doe's first name, the name of her kennel, and her city of residence, leading to online harassment, taunting, insults, and threats against Doe from third parties.
- On or about May 29, 2017, Mehalko created a new Facebook page showing a photo of Doe’s recently deceased mother-in-law, copied from her obituary, and disclosed Doe’s kennel name while associating Doe with bestiality.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 29, 2016, Kathy Mehalko filed a three-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County (trial court) against various Jane and John Does.
- On September 21, 2016, Jane Doe filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
- On February 22, 2017, the trial court granted Doe’s motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims as to all parties with prejudice.
- On March 2, 2017, Mehalko filed a motion to lift the November 8, 2016, protective order prohibiting her from disclosing Doe’s identity.
- On March 23, 2017, the trial court denied Mehalko’s motion to lift the protective order.
- On May 4, 2017, Doe filed a petition for a rule to show cause and for reconsideration, alleging Mehalko violated the protective order.
- On June 20, 2017, the trial court granted Doe’s petition for a rule to show cause.
- An evidentiary hearing took place on August 10, 2017.
- On August 30, 2017, the trial court issued a written order finding Mehalko in indirect civil contempt for violating the protective order, awarded Doe attorney fees and costs, and enjoined Mehalko from referring to or identifying Doe.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court retain jurisdiction to impose sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) or its inherent contempt authority for a party's post-judgment violation of a prejudgment discovery protective order, where the sanctions are intended to coerce compliance, and what due process is required for such proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Spence
Yes, a trial court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) and its inherent contempt authority for a party's post-judgment violation of a prejudgment discovery protective order, provided the order includes a purge provision. The court rejected Mehalko's argument that Rule 219 sanctions must always facilitate discovery or a trial on the merits, clarifying that Rule 219(c) explicitly allows for compelling obedience to orders through contempt. It distinguished Maggi (which involved postjudgment discovery of prejudgment misconduct) from the present case (which involved postjudgment enforcement of a prejudgment order) and relied on the principle that courts have inherent power to enforce their orders and preserve their dignity through contempt proceedings, regardless of constitutional or legislative grants. The court found that Mehalko's conduct, which occurred outside the court's presence, constituted indirect contempt. Given that the sanctions (attorney fees and injunction) were aimed at coercing future compliance and stopping harassment, and Doe's petition sought to cease online harassment, the contempt was classified as civil. The court affirmed that Mehalko received the minimal due process required for indirect civil contempt (notice and opportunity to be heard through the petition for a rule to show cause and evidentiary hearing). However, the court found the trial court's order defective for failing to include a purge provision, which is necessary for civil contempt to allow the contemnor to comply with the order and 'purge' the contempt. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's findings but remanded the case for the sole purpose of adding a purge provision to the order.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the expansive nature of a trial court's jurisdiction to enforce its orders. It establishes that courts retain both statutory (Rule 219(c)) and inherent authority to address violations of prejudgment discovery orders even after a case has concluded, particularly when the violations involve ongoing conduct designed to circumvent a protective order. The ruling reinforces the principle that civil contempt sanctions must always provide a clear path for the contemnor to purge themselves, highlighting a critical procedural safeguard. This decision will guide future cases in distinguishing between civil and criminal contempt, ensuring proper due process, and maintaining the enforceability of protective orders in discovery even post-judgment.
